Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Code of conduct/Draft

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a page to discuss the proposed code of conduct draft

If you're not used to using Wiki discussion pages, click the link to the left to add a new comment, or click "edit" on any of the sections below. When you've written your comment, just click "Publish changes". (For more information, see this 5-min tutorial)

Some possible starting questions[edit source]

This code of conduct (CoC) was drafted in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation’s trust and safety team over the last few months. The editorial boards had an opportunity for internal feedback before putting out a call for wider community discussion. We have drawn inspiration from CoCs used in different Wikimedia areas and open projects (listed below the draft). We aim to put the draft to a vote to implement on the 14th of May. (Eligible voters = authors + reviewers + editorial boards + associate editors + members with >30 contribs to any WikiJournal space).

Some possible questions to ponder:

  • Are any items too broad or too narrow?
  • Should any terms link to definitions, and if so, which ones?
  • Should any sections be shortened, moved elsewhere, or collapsed?

Where possible, specific suggestions are ideal! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it looks good :-) Not too long. Doc James (discusscontribs) 15:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since a couple of people have emailed saying that they still intend to comment, I think it is sensible to delay voting until the the start of June to give time for feedback and implementation of changes. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it looks good too. I just have a couple of comments and replies to some comments. 1) Section 3 could distinguish between privacy and confidentiality. Sensitive information can be considered confidential, but people might consider their contributions to conversations about sensitive information to be personal, so private to them. 2) I don't think "theft" needs to be softened. It means to steal, not to "abuse" (misusing or mistreating). --Fransplace (discusscontribs) 11:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I've updated section 3 to clarify confidential information and private conversation about such information. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks good to me. Covers all major issues - from what the CoC is, what happens when someone is behaving in an undesirable way, and what is expected of the committee. It's not too long, and not too short, and seems like there has been quite a lot of research done around it, which is appreciated. The only issue that might be good to clarify better is the type of relations the committee has with the Trust & Safety team at the WMF. It would be better to clarify if all misconducts get reported, how involved the WMF is etc etc. Well done on this! I have a feeling it will be used widely across the movement. I'll definitely promote this in the two User Groups that I chair - WikiProject Med & Wikipedia & Education. Best, Shani Evenstein (discusscontribs) 20:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Rwatson1955 (discusscontribs) 09:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC) I honestly cannot see anything here to object to (and some excellent possible points for clarification have been raised above) and would be very much in favour of supporting this and implementing and then it can be tested in the real world to see if it both: helps to avoid adverse issues; helps us to resolve them.Reply[reply]
Kudos to everyone who worked on the Code of Conduct! It looks great to me. Where do I vote? ;^)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback and discussion about CoC[edit source]

I must congratulate the Code of Conduct (CoC) committee for coming up with such a well drafted, meaningful and concise CoC. In my own independent capacity I have evaluated the existing draft and provide my feedback as below. Conflict of Interest Declaration: I have no material or financial gain relating to the CoC. I have framed my feedback in pointwise manner so that other users can intersperse theirs in between (with respect to the corresponding point). Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Positive behaviours.. 2. Engage in collegial, constructive dialogue
    • Excellently drafted section. Meaningful questions. However, it does not clarify whether ALL the items need to be fulfilled or whether having most of them fulfilled is ok. It also does not define the implications if one finds one or more answers not to be in affirmative. Suppose I am not sure whether I need support and even if I do, I am not sure where I can access it. What do I do in such a case? At least a single line instruction should be there if one or more answers are not in affirmative. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thanks for the feedback User:Diptanshu Das. It seems the initial statement "We expect you to consider the following when engaging in discussion:" suggests that all of those behaviors are expected. --- FULBERT (discusscontribs) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Positive behaviours.. 3. Respect confidentiality -
    • Revision of the Ethics statement
      • It provides a link to WikiJournal User Group/Ethics statement wherein confidentiality expectations are supposedly stated. I could find the confidentiality expectations for peer reviewers, editorial board and associate editors. When the ethics statement was drafted, the category of non-board user group participants was not considered. Furthermore, it was not considered that 'WikiJournal is also a community' and not merely an academic journal. The Ethics statement therefore needs to be updated suitably prior to finalising the version of CoC to be put up for voting. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • There is no clarification about what is expected from a lay participant of discussions either on the mailing list or on the user group talk page. In case others outside the stated groups are free from confidentiality expectations, it should be clearly specified. Alternatively, if there is some definite confidentiality expectation from them, that should be clarified as well. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I am not clear on what lay participation is, and what sorts of information would be available to them that would or would not need to remain confidential. --- FULBERT (discusscontribs) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • When the Ethics statement was drafted there was no consideration of former board members. The same needs to be brought under consideration during the revision of the Ethics statement. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        It would seem that the expectation of board members, given any information they had related to their roles, would continue to apply once they left their board positions. --- FULBERT (discusscontribs) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Clearly defining what counts as confidential and what does not
      • It is not specified what exactly counts as confidential, what is citable and what is not. At Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Open questions#Public citability of board discussions and Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Open questions#1.2 Code of Conduct of the Board members ... 4. Commit to transparency. ... Make all Board records available publicly, unless they should be private. an attempt was made to understand what is to be treated as confidential but adequate clarification was not obtained. For example, for some reason some board members would not like to publicly reveal that they have said something quoting confidentiality issues; yet they might not have any objection if the same email is simultaneously sent to a publicly visible mailing list. In fact, they seem to have issues even when the reference of the same is made to a Wikimedia personnel. I however, lack the understanding why there would be so much confidentiality issues on an open platform like that on WMF platform and the board members are unable to explain as well. Going by their rationale perhaps reporting a violation of CoC to the designated email may also count as violation of CoC (since they can allege that confidential information is being shared without permission) unless the entire stuff takes place on open forum. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I am not clear what is meant in this section, meaning if it is a question, a request, or a comment. --- FULBERT (discusscontribs) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The confidentiality clause inadvertently precludes reporting any board discussions to the designated email id in case permission of the author (and possibly alleged violator) needs to be procured before sharing board emails. Alternatively, it needs to be clearly defined that board discussions are citable, a topic raised at Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Open questions#Public citability of board discussions but never adequately addressed. I fail to understand apart from accepted credentials of credibility of having a say in board matters, why would the board members be considered so special that they enjoy 'plausible denability' from what they say? In other words, I fail to understand that for non-board members why board discussions can be offered merely as summaries and not full-text citable discussions? I believe that a journal article is not be be considered open-access if only its abstract and not full-text is publicly accessible. Similarly, I see the potential of significant abuse of this confidentiality clause unless it is clearly defined what is confidential and what is not. Should you have any doubts about what I am saying and why I am saying so, I would be glad to share the details but it needs to be clearly defined that I am allowed to share the details publicly. That has not been the case till now. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How to go about it:
The discussion at Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Open questions#Public citability of board discussions continued subsequently at Talk:WikiJournal User Group/Open questions#1.2 Code of Conduct of the Board members ... 4. Commit to transparency. ... Make all Board records available publicly, unless they should be private. needs to be completed. It needs to be defined clearly what is to be considered confidential. The Ethics statement needs to be revised. All this needs to be done prior to inclusion of the confidentiality clause. Alternatively, the confidentiality clause can be put on hold till the issues are resolved while the rest of the CoC is put up for voting. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions User:Diptanshu Das. They will be considered.
  • Positive behaviours.. 4. Behave ethically
    • WikiJournal property .. not expose it to loss, damage, misuse or theft
      • is 'any other form of abuse' a better terminology that 'theft'? Give it a thought.
    • must conform .. to applicable law .. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It needs to be kept in account that what is legal in one country might not be legal in some other country. The same content should perhaps be rethought and reframed from a two way perspective, both from the organisation perspective as well as from that of the user. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Link to the ethics statement should perhaps be mentioned (once again) here.
  • Positive behaviours.. 5. Be an Ambassador for the project
    • It is very pertinent that the wider Wikimedia community has been mentioned. However, perhaps the 'Open knowledge', 'Free-culture movement' and possibly 'Open Access' and open licensing be mentioned as well. May be the 'Access to Knowledge (A2K) movement' can be mentioned as well. It can be written something like 'wider Wikimedia community which is related to ...'. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Positive behaviours.. Additional points for consideration
    • Fact checking and validation
      • It is widely known that as in w:Chinese whispers mis-information spreads rather quickly. This is especially relevant with respect to communities and social groups. Fake news is a growing concern in this line. Human biases have a self-reinforcing pattern. This pattern can be interrupted if each individual ensures validation checks for anticipations or assumptions. This safeguard does not seem to be in place and opinions are possibly held identical to facts and evidence. Since the board members can be assumed to be credible individuals rather than random lay individuals, I feel the need for inclusion of some fact-checking exercise. Mere mention of Have I made sure to educate myself before asking others to explain things to me? does not seem enough to me. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Neutrality and assumption of good faith
      • Although w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies to encyclopaedic content, the significance of neutral point of view still remains quite relevant to user group discussions since introduction of biases of any sort can have a detrimental role. The same goes for w:Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Perhaps the inclusion of a single question from this perspective can be helpful. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I have updated the impartiality point of the CoC committee. Assume good faith is included under point 1. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Negative behaviours.. Harassment
  • Negative behaviours..
    • Discriminatory basis
      • A list of discriminatory basis has been provided and it has been mentioned that the list is non-exhaustive as evident from the mention of '(but not limited to)'. But this leaves room for subjective judgement. For example, suppose I have a criminal record, am I free to participate freely on Wikimedia spaces (including WikiJournal spaces) without the fear of discrimination? The ideal answer should be 'yes' but the realistic answer is that if this fact be known, participants might prefer not to group up with this person in handling Wikimedia affairs. The realistic fact is that the bureaucrats/editors/Editors-in-chief may feel that the participants have every right to choose who they choose to collaborate with. Unless the parameters specifically mentioned in the list act as the basis for the choice of individuals they choose to collaborate with, it is considered acceptable. Thus when such choices are made based on drawing stereotypes, it has been held permissible as has happened here and here. I feel that this '(but not limited to)' leaves significant room for subjective opinion about what can be the part of this bracket and what not. My suggestion is that 'or any other parameter not directly influencing the context or discussion in question' (or something similar) be clearly mentioned in its place. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I have updated this point using a variant of the wording from the Aus HRC. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reporting process
  • Additional points
    • Answerability and accountability
      • I may be wrong, but I feel that I have seen a propensity of avoiding answering questions where certain things can be hard to justify. Being volunteers, the user are not obliged to address the issues they raise. Examples can be found here, here or here. However, a board is not just a random group of volunteers. A board therefore has responsibilities that that includes answerability and accountability. Such a thing has not been emphasised. Perhaps this can be brought within the scope of CoC. The board members can feel free to discuss internally in this regard. Diptanshu 💬 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflicts of interest[edit source]

Could we please have some guidelines on COIs for the journals? See Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest in academic publishing for issues that arise in other publications. HLHJ (discusscontribs) 00:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJHJ: COI guidlines are currently included as part of the journals' publication ethics statement. However, we could more clearly indicate what items are included in the publication ethics statement and bylaws either at the top or bottom of the CoC page. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Codes of Conduct, Sporting contexts and Referees[edit source]

Thomas and I have talked several times about the complexities of human nature, the difficulty in creating good Codes of Conduct, and the greater difficulties and time required for training community members on the expectations and correcting behaviors that fall outside any specific communities CoC.

I’ve been working on these puzzles for years, and am wildly passionate about creating inclusive and welcoming experiences for engaging the many human beings around the world who could be contributing to progress within the free knowledge movement. And here’s the best suggestions I’ve got so far.

Looking at the sports played around the world, and our childhood exposures to the sports around us, we have the concepts and specific rules for what is “sportsmanlike conduct”, what interactions draw a foul, when someone is not allowed on the field of play, and under what conditions they are allowed and invited to return.

Football (aka Soccer in the US) is one of my favorite because it is so easily recognized in the world, and most kids I know get some exposure to it. Have you ever played? Or at least watched a few matches? What other sports have you payed attention to over the years?

Here are the key ingredients I’ve seen in sports that I think make fantastic models for codes of conduct in other communities and projects:

1. Goals - what are we trying to accomplish?

2. Rules for participation - and training on those rules

3. Training on those goals & rules

4. Trained referees who watch for fouls, call them when they think they’ve happened, and decide what to do next. (Ref Yellow & Red cards)

5. Clear ways to de-escalate conflicts that inevitably happen between people

(Interruption just came in - I’ll add more later. But do you like the concepts so far?) DrMel (discusscontribs) 21:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From mailing list[edit source]

Also for record: discussion from wikimedia-l mailing list (subject "Feedback requested for draft code of conduct for user group"). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CC-BY-SA conflict[edit source]

Hi, unless I am missing something there is a conflict between open licensing and "When acting on a WikiJournal’s behalf, we seek to take good care of WikiJournal property (physical or information), and not expose it to loss, damage, misuse or theft. WikiJournal property should be used solely for legitimate WikiJournal purposes and not for personal benefit." Just as an example, If someone who has contributed to a wikijournal wants to link to that journal in their CV, are they not using WikiJournal information for personal profit? Unless of course you exclude the actual journal from this clause. WereSpielChequers (discusscontribs) 07:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]